similar to: [LLVMdev] Min and max

Dear all, I have a function MYFUN which depends on 3 positive parameters TETA[1], TETA[2], and TETA[3]; x belongs to [0,1]. I integrate the function over [0,0.1], [0.1,0.2] and [0.2,0.3] and want to choose the three parameters so that these three integrals are as close to, resp., 2300, 4600 and 5800 as possible. As I have three equations with three unknowns, I expect the exact fit, i.e., the SS

Hi, I have been trying to move some instructions between basic blocks , After looking at the API , I found llvm::Instruction::clone() but there is no result value for this. For example- source Basic block : continuation: ; preds = %else, %then %iftmp = phi i32 [ 5, %then ], [ 9, %else ] store i32 %iftmp, i32* %datasize ; 3 instructions below

I was trying to run the simplify CFG Pass in LLVM , and delete an unreachable basic block ("continuation" below ) after running one of my own IR transforms , but I keep getting the error - While deleting: i8* %g Use still stuck around after Def is destroyed: store i8 0, i8* %g I am well aware of what that means, but isn't the whole purpose of the "simplifyCFGPass" to

instcombine can handle certain orders of "icmp"s that are "or"ed together: x != 5 OR x > 10 OR x == 8 becomes.. x != 5 OR x == 8 becomes.. x != 5 However, a different ordering prevents the simplification: x == 8 OR x > 10 OR x != 5 becomes.. %or.eq8.gt10 OR x != 5 and that can't be simplified because we now have an "or" OR "icmp". What would I

Hi All, I was wondering if there is an optimisation pass that moves a stack allocated array, initialised with constant values, to a global constant array. And if there is such a pass, what requirements are there for it to operate? My optimised IR is below. As you can see an array of 5 integers is created with alloca, then each element is stored to in turn. It would be nice if this array was

Here's an initial stab, but I'm not too happy about the temporarily adding new instructions then removing it because returning it will have it added back in to replace other uses. I also added a couple test cases pass with the new InstructionCombining changes (the old code only passes one of the added tests). Also, this change exposes some simplification for

Hi, all I'd like to write a code that can build different codes based on LLVM version. Like code snippets in the below. #ifdef __LLVM_29__ PHINode *PN = Builder.CreatePHI (Type::getDoubleTy(getGlobalContext()), 2, "iftmp"); #elif __LLVM_28__ PHINode *PN = Builder.CreatePHI (Type::getDoubleTy(getGlobalContext()), "iftmp"); #else assert ("wrong

Hello, I'm doing some Def/Use analysis, and I'm hung up on one tricky spot. The BB in question is attached. Ignore the red. The issue is that '%13 = load...' instruction does not show up as a Use for the '%scevgep25' definition, and I feel like it should. Instead, it shows up as a Use for '%iftmp.55.0 = select...', though Operand(0) for this '%13 =

Dear All, I have, in an LLVM bitcode program, the following phi node: %iftmp.225.0 = phi i8* [ getelementptr ([10 x i8]* @.str12597431, i32 0, i32 0), %bb114 ], [ getelementptr ([10 x i8]* @.str1258, i32 0, i32 0), %bb111 ], [ getelementptr ([10 x i8]* @.str1258, i32 0, i32 0), %bb111 ] This phi instruction has two arguments for the same incoming basic block. The only reason why it passes

On Mar 17, 2009, at 11:37 AMPDT, John Criswell wrote: > Dear All, > > I have, in an LLVM bitcode program, the following phi node: > > %iftmp.225.0 = phi i8* [ getelementptr ([10 x i8]* @.str12597431, > i32 0, > i32 0), %bb114 ], [ getelementptr ([10 x i8]* @.str1258, i32 0, i32 > 0), > %bb111 ], [ getelementptr ([10 x i8]* @.str1258, i32 0, i32 0), > %bb111 ]

Hi, I have this piece of code: tm = local ? localtime(&curr) : gmtime(&curr); if (!tm) return NULL; which translates into something like: ---------------------------------------------- entry: %iftmp.0 = alloca %struct.tm*, align 8 %tm = alloca %struct.tm*, align 8 ... // Declares iftmp.0 as iftmp.0 call void @llvm.dbg.declare( { }* %iftmp.0, { }* bitcast

Kangkook Jee <aixer77 at gmail.com> writes: > Hi, all > > I'd like to write a code that can build different codes based on LLVM version. > Like code snippets in the below. > > #ifdef __LLVM_29__ > PHINode *PN = Builder.CreatePHI (Type::getDoubleTy(getGlobalContext()), 2, "iftmp"); > #elif __LLVM_28__ > PHINode *PN = Builder.CreatePHI

This question has little or nothing to do with R; as usual I'm simply hoping to take advantage of the great depth of knowledge and expertise in the R community. Anyone who is interested in replying should send email directly to me (rolf at math.unb.ca) and not to this list. To get to my question: In a two person zero-sum game, the value of the game to the row player is v_r = max min

One of my actions runs for more than 2 minutes. In development mode it runs and completes successfully, but in production mode it quits out with a timeout error: "Timeout::Error (execution expired):" Any ideas how i can stop this? I''m desperate to find a solution. Is there a setting i can change somewhere? Any help would be greately appreciated, Thanks Chris -- Posted

Hi all I have read the lartc manual, I have read the some faqs but still don''t know how to achive the following: I have a 512kbps line which I share with 8 customers. Now what I have is everyone gets max 64kbps. That''s fine. DEV=ath0 DEV_MAX_RATE=6mbit DEV_RAT_LOW=64kbit DEV_RATE_HIGH=128kbit tc qdisc del dev $DEV root tc qdisc add dev $DEV root handle 1: cbq avpkt 1000

Hi Farnoosh, Use ?as.Date() dat1<- read.table(text="V1 2012-01-12 08:23:00 2012-01-19 15:29:00",sep=",",header=TRUE,stringsAsFactors=FALSE) dat1$V1<- as.Date(dat1$V1) ?dat1 #????????? V1 #1 2012-01-12 #2 2012-01-19 A.K. ________________________________ From: farnoosh sheikhi <farnoosh_81 at yahoo.com> To: "smartpink111 at yahoo.com"

Hello! I've discovered that setting "min password length" in smb.conf file it is not enough when user changes password with windows "change password" dialog, also its necessary to change account policy with pdbedit -P "min password length" -C 4 Is that desired behavior to set same parameter twice? Thank you

> > The patch I sent implements the minimum in the balloon driver and we are > currently building sles10 with my patch. > > K. Y I think I missed this patch when you sent it in. Could you please send it again so that I can take a look? Thanks, Aravindh _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com

What would the dangers/issues be within increasing the minimum time before the fencing enforced panic of a node? We're hitting problems where HBA multipath failover does not happen fast enough and we may need to up the fencing timeout to something closer to 30-60 secs or more. Is this mostly a performance impact or does it increase the window for corruption issues? Looks like from the current

Hi all, I rebooted a server having a 20TB XFS volume under LVM and wait about 15 min to boot. It stays at; Setting up logical volume management For 15 min then proceeds to boot fine. During this time, I see the 14 disks of the 20TB volume flashing quickly as though being read. Nothing in my logs to indicate bad behavior. I am running the latest 6,4 kernel. Any one see this before? - aurf